I agree! Whay not have entertaining information? The notion that museums
are stuffy, boring academic places needs to be disproved. Whats wrong
with the idea that learning something can be fun and exciting instead of
like pulling teeth?

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Gregory Scheib wrote:

> Maybe we can think of this issue of "entertainment" a little differently --
>
> Even if we are afraid to call exhibitions "show business," it's clear
> that if we don't sell the audience on the idea that museum have something of
> value -- an experience that is unique and interesting -- people aren't going
> to come.  It takes a certain amount of promotion and public relations,
> "show biz" if you will, to attract the audience.
>
> Once inside, exhibitions should not be merely entertaining, they
> should be both academically rigorous AND entertaining.  They are not
> mutually exclusive terms, though we sometimes talk as if they were.
>
> Entertainment, I might add, is not limited to the "thrills, chills and
> spills" attitude of an amusement park. Entertainment can also be subtle, and
> affecting -- Like a tragic Shakspearean play.
>
> And, are we confusing the term "entertainment" with "captivation"
> in the museum world?
>
> Would anyone argue against trying to "captivate" our audiences? --
> to charm and enchant them -- Perhaps "captivating," rather than "entertaining,
"
> should be our primary goal in exhibition -- For when the visitor is captivated
,
> are they not also entertained?
>
> Gregory Scheib                            ~     ~
> The George Washington University        (<O>   <O>)
> [log in to unmask]             (     ^     )
>                                            / | \
>                                           (_____)
>                                             ___
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Paul Apodaca wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Hank Burchard wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Doug Lantry wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hank Burchard's conception of museums as "showbiz" troubles me.  If he
> > > > means keeping audiences engaged and interested, then good....
> > >
> > >      I do indeed. Remember: Shakespeare is showbiz; grand opera is showbiz
.
> > >
> > >      Hank Burchard * [log in to unmask] * Washington DC
> > >
> >
> > It isn't showbiz. Civilization and culture
> > are  more valuable than simple entertainment.
> >
>  The P.T. Barnum cynicism that museums can be reduced to is a
> > loss for our children and theirs. Culture is only maintained by those who
> > practice it. Many curators and educators have endeavored to practice the
> > best disciplines of their cultures through academic application of
> > exhibits as articulated thesis to add to our civilization. That such
> > efforts can be cast aside for the showman's promises of ticket sales is
> > at least a stumbling here at the end of the twentieth century. As one who
> > has benefitted from the WWII generation's efforts, I would hate to think
> > that all they fought and died for was a marketplace of entertainment.
> > Maybe museums will pass the torch back to the academie, one way or
> > another that light is what I believe we work for.
> >
> > Paul Apodaca
> >
>